TEDUCK

It is not a mod. I am using viewports to export displays, then I overlay Helios on top of that for clickable touchscreen buttons. Here Helios is not visible due to the way DCS handles screenshots. DCS by default allows exporting left and right MFD, when modded it allows to export virtually all displays in cockpit. I am using just the MFD export, which requires no mods, just alternate screen configuration file that doesn't breaks any of the multiplayer checks. It is autogenerated by Helios. Regarding APKWS mod, In the meantime ED have finally approved it in user files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338358/

I have uploaded the mod, except that it is awaiting approval. Not sure if ED gonna allow for this to be approved

Here you go. Drop the file to CoreMods\aircraft\AircraftWeaponPack in the main DCS folder (not the saved games one). Remember to make backup of the orignal file, because this mod breaks MP compatibility. Seems like it is no longer needed to always use ground stow mode for the launchers. I have adapted the mod to work with yesterday's update. Mod features: -Single player only. -APKWS uses default laser code 1688. -Both MPP and HE variants of APKWS available. -Multiple possible payloads (4 variants, 2 for outer and 2 for inner launchers). -Replaces least used configurations (the ones with smoke and illumination rockets combined with HE). -Ability to switch between HE and MPP APKWS mid flight (using rocket zones). My mod is not based on the one mentioned by Cydrych. It is made from ground up. rockets.lua

APKWS is laser guided missile or rocket (it's sort of both, because it is based on hydra rockets). The advantage of that solution is that any aircraft able to fire hydra rockets may technically be retrofitted to fire APKWS. AH-64E is able to fire APKWS natively. AH-64E block II that we have in DCS is not orignally equipped with APKWS, those missiles/rockets were not available when block II was introduced to the service. So it is lacking any features to properly define APKWS to the fire control system. This is however not so much of a problem, because APKWS is guided, so there is no need for a very precise ballistic solution. Seems like APKWS from my mod have to be fired in ground stow mode, forcing the launchers to aim straight ahead, instead of being elevated down. There is no provision for laser code selection, 1688 is the default code for modded APKWS, IRL laser code may be set by the ground crew, but I don't know how to add the tab in the AH-64D kneeboard to set the laser code for APKWS. Adding rockets to the Apache seems like not very straightforward process, so to do this quick I had to replace some existing configuration. I have decided to replace the combination of HE and illumination rockets. This is because I never use that combination, and also because I can have both MPP and HE APKWS variants loaded at the single launcher using the famous AH-64D rockets zone feature (allowing to select which one I want to fire mid flight). Effects aren't bad. With proper launching technique, from correct altitude and with correct pitch, I am able to score >4 KM direct hits on enemy vehicles. Keep in mind that this is quick and dirty APKWS mod, it requires changing of the weapon definitions in DCS so it will break MP compatibility, after more testing I am planning to release it. EDIT: More testing. That's a fracking tunguska, at 9.6 clicks range, no way APKWS can make it, right? Actually it made it! Altitude of above 3000 ft, tell you'r George to slide back in H-B mode (to get that extra superelevation), fire APKWS, wait about 10-12 seconds before lasing, watch it burn!

The article that you linked is talking about FM being used for ranging. Square Pair radar uses PSK for ranging, and FM is only used against notching targets (to overcome the notch filter). This is different from many radars that use FM ranging. In every single HAM transceiver I have ever seen CW and FM are different mutally exclusive modes. FM being used mainly for voice comms while CW can only be used for telegraphy. Wikipedia page about CW is actually denying itself. First it says that: A continuous wave or continuous waveform (CW) is an electromagnetic wave of constant amplitude and frequency Then it says: Other CW radars linearly or pseudo-randomly "chirp" (frequency modulate) their transmitters rapidly enough to avoid self-interference with returns from objects beyond some minimum distance So according to the beginning of the article it has to be fixed frequency, and according to the end of article it says it may be not... What a mess... That's why I rarely ever use Wikipedia.

Shouldn't the light go off when both systems are turned off? IIRC the light is triggered by ECM sensing SAM system emmission, but what if ECM is turned OFF completely and so is RWR?

I don't think that Su-22 would be so good at maneuvers. Those sensors work at fairly high framerate. No chance the plane gonna maneuver so aggresively to fool it that way. If processing worked at 2 or 3 FPS or so it could have been a thing. Even for a very slow processing at 20 FPS the maneuvers will be looking very gradual. The missile was designed to be used against targets maneuvering much better than Su-22. By time they finally finish the Su-57 and put it into service US will probably update the algorithm multiple times or even introduce AIM-9X block III. Su-57 seems to be stuck in development being too expensive to reliably produce and use in combat. You cannot evaluate the missile performance based on a single engagement and a short video released by US that doesn't show much (IIRC it only shows the AMRAAM engagement, not even the AIM-9X moment itself). Reality is not a TACVIEW where you can easily analyze the shot. Russians would need to know the exact position of both planes and the missile updated every split second. It is not possible, unless it is DCS where you can launch a replay and press F6 to see the missile

We don't even know if the pilot knew about Hornet in the area. If he knew he would probably have aborted the mission. If he didn't knew about the hornet he was likely unaware of the threat and the missile being launched. Ground attack pilots are usually more concerned about ground fire, especially in Syria where AAA and MANPADS were common threat. It was not very common for US aircraft to shot at Syrian planes. Aircraft and pilot were Syrian. I wouldn't expect Russia to be upgrading old Syrian Su-22 with some countermeasures against AIM-9X. The only method known to work well against that missile (block 1 variant of AIM-9X) would be DIRCM (like one mounted on Ka-52). Aircraft maneuvering wouldn't look like a flare. It wouldn't be rejected. No matter what maneuvers you do the aircraft won't be looking like a flare, unless the distance is very long (which would mean that the shot would probably be out of range anyway). It would be theoretically possible for a missile to go for ground clutter, but almost impossible for it to just reject the real target as a flare. Ground clutter is much harder to reject than flare. Because it is not uniform and easy to predict. I would bet on a ground clutter rather than a flare.

Another misconception. You don't need ML for such basic image processing. You just reject false targets procedurally. AIM-9X was developed before ML became a thing in real world use. ML will often fail, because it is sort of unreliable by the way it works. Procedural image recognition is very different thing. It is much more predictable, but less flexible. For flares procedural recognition is great, ML is not even considered any useful for such a simple solution. Maverick was developed before they started to use algorithms for image processing. In early versions they used simple contrast tracking with dedicated circuit to do the job, no software defined image processing for early Mavericks. AIM-9X uses software defined image processing. The resolution is 128x128 pixels, not too bad. Keep in mind that the seeker has fairly low FOV and the missile is a short range missile. FPA seeker is thermal camera by definition. Various cameras have various resolution of a seeker. The fact that it has 128 by 128 doesn't means it is not a camera. Flare will always look like a small dot, that's it, unless you have whole lot of flares close to eachother. https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home Here you can find a PDF called Histoy of the Electro-Optical Guided Missiles. It describes many IRCCM methods used, it also describes differences in seeker technology. It most likely does the opposite. It knows how the flare will look like and rejects anything that corresponds to the scheme. Targets are very complex, while flares are extremally simple to recognize. Here is a quote from the paper: During mid-course, the tracking FPA will typically have 7 × 7 or 9 × 9 pixels on the target aircraft. Note that the target presents a complex pattern of pixels receiving energy. The hot flare is physically small and therefore puts (lots of) energy into a single pixel. The gray-body decoy puts the amount of energy equivalent to a valid target into multiple pixels, as this type of decoys uses rapidly oxidizing foil pieces that bloom to fill a large volume. However, the shape of the energy pattern is changed from the spatial energy distribution of the target. The key is that the shape does not have to look like an a priori stored image of what an aircraft should be. Rather, the tracker can reject the decoy because it does not correlate with the energy distribution seen a short time before.124 Su-22 was developed before Russia even existed. It was developed in Sovlet Union well before first FPA seeker based air to air missile.

It is literally infrared camera. You can see one of the old videos on YT showing what the AIM-9X seeker is seeing. AIM-9M has optically modulated seeker, so totally irrelevent to the AIM-9X that uses imaging seeker. For imaging seeker every single flare will look like a small spot, and every single plane won't. At least when the shoot is in parameters and not from too far range when plane will look like a single dot from a distance (but then missile should recognize plane when it gets closer). The only way would be having so many flares close to eachother blending into some larger shape. Keep in mind that Su-22 has very crappy visibility out of cockpit, so it is extermally unlikely for a pilot to see the missile launch if it's not a head on launch. In DCS AI planes seems to always see the missile launch, while players almost never spot the launch. Same IRL, pilot won't spot the launch unless it is specifically looking at that exact spot.

IR jammers (I mean old ones, not the DIRCM) were meant against optically modulated seekers, they should give very little effect against FPA seeker. Flares should be almost useless because AIM-9X can reject them with ease (flare looks like a small spot to a FPA seeker while plane is much bigger object, the guidance system knows how the flares look and rejects them). AIM-9X uses reduced smoke motor and Su-22 has preatty crappy visibility outside of cockpit, IRL there is almost no chance for a Su-22 pilot to see the FOX-2 missile and react properly.

Another important option would be aligning on rocket run. With rockets WASed George could be aligning the helicopter on I beam, allowing for player as a CPG to shoot rockets. Now if a player wants to shoot rockets, he needs to switch to the pilot seat (or take over the helicopter using HOCAS), because George as a pilot is not very useful.

I am not using another sim as reference. I am using manual that has been written by a Sam Simulator developer who was also Sam System operator, this manual is based on real SA-5 manual (pictures are probably copied from real manual). Regarding SA-2 I am not providing any data from other simulator, I am providing information about well known facts that command guided system with early TWS radar have no CW mode, you can also go to the SIMHQ forum where there are multiple SAM operators explaining how those systems work. If it is modulated it is not called CW anymore. CW means continuous wave which doesn't change over time. If you add modulation it starts to change things like frequency, amplitude or phase over time so it is no longer continuous. Every HAM will tell you that FM, AM or PM is no longer called CW. CW is unmodulated by definition. There are at least 4 modes of emmission: -MHI: pure CW, best signal strength, typically used when acquiring the target or guiding the missile. -FKM: PSK based ranging (well I have previously forgotten that this is essentially PSK and not PM), moderate reduction in signal strength. -MHI+FM: only for small relative velocity targets, shows targets that would otherwise hide in a notch filter, may show ground clutter if antenna not in look up, some reduction in a signal strength. -FKM+FM: almost the same as above, but with ranging possibility, biggest reduction in signal strength.

ECM CW light is meant to be lit when ECM detects CW illumination. In DCS it seems to be illuminated as soon as SA-2 launches missile at you. The problem is that SA-2 has no CW mode. It uses early TWS radar (that tracks a single target while scanning), IIRC it uses FM ranging at all times and have no CW emission mode. IRL the only change when missile is launched is that RPK starts sending radio command signals to the missile and this is the marker that real RWR systems may use to trigger missile launch warning, but we are talking about ECM here and not the RWR, so that's the story for another thread Generally speaking some doppler radar based systems may use CW mode for target illumination. SA-6 uses CW illuminator for target illumination only, it also has (monopulse?) radar for target tracking and target acquisition radar for searching. So normally SA-6 should light up both SAM and CW lights when it is guiding a missile, because ECM is detecting both CW illuminator and target tracking radar. Lets go to the SA-5 scenario now. SA-5 is different kind of dog. It may use MHI mode (fancy name for CW) for both target tracking and target illumination, however it may also be guiding a missile in FKM mode (fancy therm for PM modulated ranging) and may also introduce FM mode when target is trying to hide in a notch filter. IIRC In total there are at least 4 emission modes of Square Pair radar and IIRC all 4 of them may be used for both guidance of the missile and tracking of the target. In a typical SA-5 engagement scenario CW light would go on first, (when radar tries to establish tracking in elevation and azimuth), then SAM light would go on when radar is switched into FKM (CW light goes off) and finally CW light would go on and SAM light would extinguish (when system goes back to CW after initial ranging was established and FKM was no longer needed). Not sure if RWR would be able to classify SA-5 as SA-5 when it is in CW mode, because the only hint would be the frequency (no fancy PRF, modulation and other specific stuff that could be a fingerprint of a radar), but that is again story for another RWR thread null Following pictures are taken from Sam Simulator manual, available on Sam Simulator author's page: https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

So are we getting only LONGBOW protocol support (without ATHS/TACFIRE and FIRE SUPPORT) protocols?

Yes, but it will just attack the target with anything he has. There is no option to force him to attack the target with a certain weapon. Also IIRC he won't fire hellfires on my laser and use he's own laser instead.

Later in the early access we are getting datalink feature. What about adding ability to call for artillery fire support through a datalink? This is a real feature on AH-64D Block II that we have in a sim. That would make role of artillery in DCS much more important, especially when there are no CA players on a server.

I'd like to see some improvements to a George AI. It would be nice to have ability for a George to fly to a TSD cursor. Also command to evade fire (on a separate binding as this is critical stuff) would be good, especially when being fired upon by ATGMs or guns. Voice recognition would be even better idea to implement. But I guess that would be a far future plan. Having possibility to give a George voice commands like: "GO BEARING 175", "GO TO T01", "GO TO TSD CURSOR", "ALIGN ON TADS", "GO SPEED 65", "RADAR ALT 350", "BARO ALT 850", "FOLLOW ROUTE", "ENTER HOVER 5000M FROM T02", "SHIFT FORWARD 900M", "BREAK LEFT", "EVADE". Those are just some examples of commands that could be implemented. That would add ability to communicate with george more like a real person. He could be instructed to go to any kind of point, go any bearing, any speed etc. Regarding AI wingman there could also be some improvements. Apache is different from Ka-50 and has some specific abilities that could be used there. It would be very nice to add option "FIRE ON MY LASER" that would instruct the AI wingman to fire AGM-114K on player's laser. Also the opposite, instruct AI wingman to search for targets and illuminate them with a laser, so a player could launch AGM-114K on AI wingman's laser, or just locate the target with LST. Then "ATTACK TARGET WITH" option could be added, to tell AI to attack the target with a specific weapon (gun, rockets or a Hellfire). Later when datalink and FCR will be added there could be more options added, like firing AGM-114 on a designated datalinked target, instructing AI wingman to go to some place and search for target with FCR (much like recce option in Ka-50 for AI wingman).